Ubisoft's DRM Servers Attacked Again

[HuntrRose]

That doesn't change the fact that it is a bunch of malicious users that are ACTIVELY ruining the game for everyone else, and that, in their absence, the game would be working as planned.

-m

I read the rest of your post. The point that had to be made clear is that People attempting to hack a companies server is business as usual. It´s not like this just happened because Ubisoft attracted especially malicious Users.

I didn`t quote the rest of your post because I think that this point really can`t be argued.

I would argue that. Yes, it's business as usual that a company would find it's servers under attack. Which is why I think that it's pretty clear that these particular attacks are under way specifically because "Ubisoft attracted especially malicious Users". Ubi would have put the same security in place on these servers that they would have on any of their business servers. As they are able to do business day to day, and are evidently not crippled in their normal operation, it is reasonable to assume that if these outages are a result of attacks, those attacks are more intense and more aggressive than Ubi typically faces. The correlation with the launch of their new DRM scheme is likely not coincidental, either.

The implementation of this DRM andgred a huge number of people - and moreso in the harder-core PC users' parts of the internet. I would argue that this is ENTIRELY the result of backlash from a group of angred PC gamers (pirates or otherwise), and not in any way the "business as usual" attacks they would recieve on any other given day.

-m

Or it is Ubi not properly calculating the needed bandwith/server power for all the new users trying to log in, combined with the normal level of attacks.

Any AC2/SH5 having problems connecting will keep sending connection attempts, causing continous traffic. Not much from each, but about 50kbps during gameplay according to Ubi, so let's use that number, although connection atempts probably use more.

Now, 50kbps isn't much, but multiply it with a 100 000 users ( I don't have actual sales numbers, so using a moderate number) and you have 5 mbps, and that is just connection keep alive. On top of that, add forum posters logging in, users of other games where logging in ain't needed, the normal "hostility level" from the net, and what extra the logging attempts make over the normal use.

And if the number of users are higher, then the needed bandwith is that much higher as well...

To be honest, I believe Ubi just misscalculated the bandwith needed, and don't want to admit they screwed up.

OT: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... *looks back at Ubi's servers* .... *falls down laughing again*
Seriously, who did not see this coming?


Edit: Said it before and I say it again: To stop piracy, since you can't target the pirates, you need to use a carrot and not a stick. Punishing your paying customers is like shooting yourself in the foot to scare a burglar. It doesn't work.

Vlad The Impaler disagrees. Ubisoft might have to resort to it.

Vlad could make a forrest of people on stakes. Ubi can't. Besides, people on stakes makes a lot of mess. Doubt the Ubi directors and investors want's to clean all of that up...

 

[commasplice]

Snip

What I'm wondering is how, if we take what they say at face value, they determined they were "under attack." It certainly sounds fishy to me and I don't discount your theory or anything, but I don't really like to jump to conclusions. Assuming they're telling the truth, that means they either originally confused a DDoS attack for "exceptional demand" or that Vigil guy on the Ubi forums was misinformed. I'm leaning towards the former, but I could easily see the latter being possible when I consider that the other mods on that board weren't told what the problem was. Either way, though, I'm not sure it really matters. As I understand it, a DDoS is more or less a simulated version of "exceptional demand," right? So that means that even if they were maliciously attacked, they (apparently) didn't take the necessary precautions to protect their servers from a fuckton of people logging on.

drm does stop piracy if nobody cracks it. publishers aren't going to give it up just because people do crack it. the number of people out there who CAN'T crack the games, who might just buy it, is too attractive.

Mm, I respectfully disagree. I've been following this thing since day 1 and quite a few people have reported in about the cracks. The vast majority (including Ubisoft reps) say that cracks exist, but in AC2, you can't access the Animus, and in SH5, missions are inaccessible. However, I've also seen one or two guys claim that they've played all the way through pirated versions of both games. Either way, the fact is that the games are cracked. There's something out there that is more playable than no copy at all or a legit version of the game that won't let you play. As far as I'm concerned, any portion of the game being cracked is a failure on the DRM's part.

 

[HuntrRose]

Off Topic: I clicked that forum link given in the article. One thread in particular caught my eye. I've seen sheep before, but wow. Just wow. [http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4721051016/m/1801034838] Anyone who honestly thinks that this DRM-scratch that, ANY DRM actually helps against piracy clearly doesn't know a single god damn thing about piracy.

the drm dosnt hurt the consumer it hurt the pirate. it proctects consumer from pirate other wsie game would be unplayable due to the piarates ruing everyithing for everyone. youre understanig of how drm work is flawed and need o stody up more

Oh. Sweet. Jesus. This cannot actually be a real quote. It is so wrong it feels like a troll.

OT: I think the words everyone is looking for are "I told you so."

oh god. i suspect these people are ubisoft employees under cover

Actually, there is a rumor it is 4chan having a go

 

[commasplice]

Snip

It's a 4chan raid, buddy. This has been stated, like, 8 times in this thread alone.

 

[MercurySteam]

This is why I prefer playing games on my 360.

 

[ECAaxel]

This is why I prefer playing games on my 360.

Shame SH5 doesn't work on the 360 :/
The Subsim forums are in fury over this. www.subsim.com/radioroom

The head admin has had to close it to non registered users due to trolling

Snip

It's a 4chan raid, buddy. This has been stated, like, 8 times in this thread alone.

What is a 4Chan raid out of interest?

 

[commasplice]

What is a 4Chan raid out of interest?

Spoiler: Look up Habbo Hotel on Encyclopedia Dramatica or something. I'm way too lazy to explain.

 

[commasplice]

Of course! It couldn't possibly be about a game's downloads from torrents exceeding equaling and sometimes exceeding the number of copies sold. How silly of me!

Care to back that up with some evidence?

It's not piracy, it's Gamestop! DRM hurts Gamestop! Feel free to pirate, everybody. They're not after you at all.

Well, considering that most DRM nowadays does nothing to impede piracy and everything to impede the second-hand market, I'd say what he said was fair. See, the difference between piracy and game trade-ins is that, a lot of times, pirates wouldn't pay for the game even if that were the only option. As for the people that buy used games, however, they're certainly willing to pay. They just want to save some cash. It's much easier for the publishers to alter the means by which those customers can acquire the games than it is to force people who don't want to pay to do so.

 

[brewbeard]

That link makes me think the school bought laptops that happened to have webcams on them (it's a common feature), some kid took a picture he shouldn't have (accidentally or deliberately) and was reprimanded by a teacher when he turned the laptop in. The lawyers are just hyping it up to make it seem like some sort of Orwellian conspiracy to generate animosity towards the school system in support of what very well could be baseless accusations.

I present you with Exhibit B. That's what I meant to link to in the first place, but I couldn't find it.

Word of the subpoena came as the elite suburban school district, through [their spokesman, Douglas Young], conceded that "notice should have been given" to families that the district's computer system would snap photos of school laptop users - even in children's homes - if the laptops were reported missing or stolen.

School technicians have activated that system 42 times this school year when the district's laptops were reported missing or stolen, Young said. He said parents and students should have been told clearly of the policy in advance.

The suit alleges that in November, the Harriton assistant principal confronted sophomore Blake Robbins with a photo of what school officials saw as the boy's "improper activity" - taken by the webcam of his school-issued laptop in his home.

Robbins told TV crews outside his home yesterday that a school laptop's webcam had photographed him eating Mike & Ike candy in his home, but that school officials thought it showed him using drugs.

Wow, that's...pretty bad. I can see why they'd want to use it if the laptop were stolen, but if it can be activated otherwise any evidence gathered by it should be destroyed.

 

[Magnalian]

Must be Templars trying to censor AC2.

... or so they'd have you think!

Still, I can't help but facepalm at this news. They've been told over and over again their little scheme wouldn't work, and lo and behold: it doesn't work. Is this some kind of irony? Or is it just stupidity?

 

[reg42]

This is putting a huge grin on my face. I don't really care if this is giving me bad karma; you know what? They fucking deserve this. Good show.

 

[MR T3D]

"I want this game but the game developer wants me to pay money for it. Durr....I think I'll make a copy of my friend's game just to stick it to the man and show them how much I hate their high prices."

"I want this game but the developer started using CD keys so I couldn't copy it from a friend. Durr....I think I'll download it and use this key-gen program to show them how much I hate these things."

"I want this game but the developer started using really intrusive DRM that totally infringes on my right to play this game without paying for it. Durr....I think I'll download the game and crack it just to show them how much I hate DRM."

"Now they're making it so we have to be connected to the internet to play a single-player offline game! This DRM is even worse! Durrrrr.....uh durrrrr......let's hack their servers! That will show them!"

Idiots.

i think many of them are content with the 2nd last one.
once one guy fullly cracks it, uploads to your pirate site, makes no difference.
can't stop them, devs should pull a stardock and not put those resource-wasters in mah game.
FYI i do not support piracy

 

[MR.Spartacus]

This is so stupid! EA's Spore issues were bad enough. Why is it they can't learn? Screwing over the people who give you money is the opposite of what you need to do! Arkham Asylum on the other hand now that's the style to copy!

 

[HuntrRose]

Snip

What I'm wondering is how, if we take what they say at face value, they determined they were "under attack." It certainly sounds fishy to me and I don't discount your theory or anything, but I don't really like to jump to conclusions. Assuming they're telling the truth, that means they either originally confused a DDoS attack for "exceptional demand" or that Vigil guy on the Ubi forums was misinformed. I'm leaning towards the former, but I could easily see the latter being possible when I consider that the other mods on that board weren't told what the problem was. Either way, though, I'm not sure it really matters. As I understand it, a DDoS is more or less a simulated version of "exceptional demand," right? So that means that even if they were maliciously attacked, they (apparently) didn't take the necessary precautions to protect their servers from a fuckton of people logging on.

A DDoS, Distributed Denial of Service, attack at it's simplest is just a few hundred thousand machines pinging the target. Of course they don't do the windows ping once every 2 sec or when we have an answer. They send pings as fast as they can.

The server then has to answer a few hundred thousand ping requests every microsecond on top of normal traffic.

Now, the ping packets could be filtered away from the server at the router, but that still leaves lost bandwith.

In otherwords, DDoS is effective as a malicious attack where you only want to stop a site. Drawback is you need a HUGE organization, or preferably a botnet or two to pull it off properly.